Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 10 of 10
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2018-04-26 10:11 [p.18770]
moved:
That, in responding to the call of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to move our nation on a path of true healing for the crimes of the residential school era, the House:
(a) invite Pope Francis to participate in this journey with Canadians by responding to Call to Action 58 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report and issue a formal papal apology for the role of the Canadian Catholic Church in the establishment, operations, and abuses of the residential schools;
(b) call upon the Canadian Catholic Church to live up to their moral obligation and the spirit of the 2006 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and resume best efforts to raise the full amount of the agreed upon funds; and
(c) call on the Catholic entities that were involved in the running of the residential schools to make a consistent and sustained effort to turn over relevant documents when called upon by survivors of residential schools, their families, and scholars working to understand the full scope of the horrors of the residential school system in the interest of truth and reconciliation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in this House representing the people of Timmins—James Bay, and today particularly, with my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, to also be speaking with the support of the survivors, who are watching this Parliament do the right thing.
Today is a historic moment for the Parliament of Canada. It was the Parliament of Canada that created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to examine the evidence, the documents, and the testimony concerning the residential schools era. In the course of its investigation, the commission found that the policies of the Government of Canada and the Catholic Church at the time constituted a genocide.
The word “genocide” is very specific and very important. Why did the commission declare the residential school system a genocide? Based on the definition of “genocide”, it is clear that the policy of taking women and children away from their families in order to erase their identity constitutes a genocide. It is therefore crucial for the Parliament of Canada to respond to the commission, specifically by inviting Pope Francis to take part in our reconciliation process.
Today we are very confident that the Pope is capable of understanding the importance of this motion, because he has a vision of reconciliation and justice for all. The Pope must play a positive and proactive role with the Parliament of Canada and indigenous communities by issuing a formal apology.
In beginning this morning, I want to say that I never talk about faith or my own personal faith in the House. I do not believe it is appropriate. I feel that politicians often cheapen faith when they use it. However, I want to say how thrilled I was when Pope Francis was appointed, because he was a Jesuit.
I have had the great honour in my life of being influenced by and knowing Jesuits: the great Jim Webb, who worked in the co-operative movement in Cape Breton and worked in the third world and the inner cities of Toronto; Father Martin Royackers, murdered by gangs in Jamaica when standing up for the homeless; and Father Michael Czerny, who married my wife and I, who went into El Salvador in the face of the death squads to defend the poor.
What I learned from the Jesuits is that as Christians, faith is not good enough to be charity. It has to be systemic. It is about changing the systems that keep people down.
I am very confident that Pope Francis, who has spoken up on justice around the world, will hear the call of the Parliament of Canada and the cry of indigenous people to do the right thing now and close this dark, horrific chapter.
I want to say that I have been appalled by the line I heard from the Canadian bishops. They have tried to evade their role in working with us on reconciliation. We will talk today about the collusion of the federal government and the church. They have followed a pattern time and time again of defending, covering up, and hiding for each other. It all comes back to liability. It all comes back to money.
Does anyone think the survivors are here for money? When we talk with the survivors of St. Anne's residential school, who suffered such depravity, such horrors, and we see their dignity, they are not here for money.
As one man said to me last night, he came 12 hours to hear three words. This is about that. They have shown more reconciliation in the face of legal obstructions, challenges, and horrific crimes.
As another person said this to me. Imagine the worst horror story ever made and put children in it and that would not begin to cover what happened at St. Anne's Residential School. That was done through the deliberate policy and collusion. It is not just about St. Anne's, but I am speaking about it because I know the survivors and it is is in my region.
The Hill Times said:
...Pope Francis, who has worked to make compassion and justice the guiding light of his pontificate, would be more at home with the St. Anne residential survivors than he might be with some of the Canadian bishops who...to care more about its wallet than the Gospel.
Let us talk about how this started. We learned that policy was established to destroy the Indian people in our country. That was the finding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Duncan Campbell Scott articulated the policy:
I want to get rid of the Indian problem....That is my whole point. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department...
Government officials worked hard to achieve that policy. In 1892, they issued the order in council on funding. They established what was the bare minimum that could be spent to keep a child alive. Then they ensured that the money they gave the church was at least 25% lower than that. The results were horrific death rates.
Peter Henderson Bryce was a civil servant who saw the death rates in western Canada, and was appalled. He articulated a 24% death rate, which was higher than the death rates of Canadian soldiers going into the trenches in Flanders.
At the File Hills Indian Residential School there was a 69% death rate among children, overall a 40% death rate. These were death camps. However, Peter Henderson Bryce began to expose it and because he did, it forced the government to make changes.
He was not the only one speaking out. Church leaders spoke up. I think of Samuel H. Blake of the Missionary Society of the Church of England who was horrified by the treatment of the children. He wrote to Archdeacon Tims who ran the Old Sun Industrial School in Calgary. He said:
How...can you be satisfied with statistics which show that...900 to 1,000 children which pass through our Indian schools 300 of them pass out...to the grave within...twevle years I cannot conceive except upon this hypothesis that we grow callous amidst such a frightful death rate.
In 1945, an American writer, who was analyzing Canada's Indian policy, said simply that the government's policy was the extinction of Indian as Indians.
That is why we are here. For the Catholic Church to state, in 2018, that as a whole it was not involved in the running of the residential schools veers dangerously into the road of historical revisionism. The bishops promoted the policy. The bishops oversaw it. The bishops worked hand-in-hand with the federal government and covered up at every step of the way.
The documents were seized in the St. Anne's investigation. I want to thank the Ontario Provincial Police for the incredible work it did standing up and insisting that the documents be received. It took those documents from the orders and found documents that went all the way to the Curia Generalis in Rome about the crimes at St. Anne's. The Vatican was involved. The Church of Canada was involved. The bishops were involved.
They had a practice called “bleeding the children” to feed the mother house. The minimum monies that were given by the federal government to the residential schools, the orders took a tax so they could pay for their amenities in the mother house of the church. They think they are worried about liability. They got off scot-free. Woe to those who put such burdens when they had the obligation to do right.
Today the Catholic church is involved very deeply. It is cold comfort for the survivors of St. Anne's residential school to know that the church has access to all the documents. The church has access to the names of all the survivors who have been so brave to come forward. The church gets to oversee that as the defendant.
Therefore, for the church to be surprised that we are here is not good enough. What we are doing today is the call from Isaiah. We are called to be the repairer of those broken streets and city walls to restore communities to dwell. Edmund Metatawabin said that they were not here for reconciliation, that they were here for reclamation, to rebuild their communities, to rebuild their children and their grandchildren so they could move forward. They are not here for the money; they are here for someone to do right.
In the time I have left, it is important we talk about the role of complicity. I want to speak today of 14-year-old John Kioke and 12-year-old Michel Matinas from Attawapiskat, and 12-year-old Michel Sutherland from Weenusk, who never came home. Many children never came home from St. Anne's.
When I went into those communities, they asked me what happened to their uncles and to their cousins. We found out that these boys were so desperate to escape the criminal abuse that was happening that they took their lives in their hands in April 1941, when the James Bay rivers are overflowing, and tried to find their way home. They never got there. Father Paul Langlois told the children to keep their mouths shut about what had happened at the school.
I mention this because it was a year later when the federal government found out about the deaths of these children. It did not call the school; it called Bishop Belleau and asked why he had covered it up. He said that the boys were deserters. Therefore, the bishops oversaw this.
I want to read from a letter of 1968 from teachers who were hired at St. Anne's residential school, because there were good teachers, good brothers and good nuns. However, they were always pushed out because they were not cruel enough or sick enough to stay in those institutions. Six teachers went to St. Anne's and were fired. They wrote to Jean Chrétien and said that they were told by the Department of Indian Affairs that it was easier to replace the teachers than to deal with what was happening at St. Anne's.
In a teacher's handwritten letter, she said, “although we may have not understood the implications of working at a mission school...we were employed by the Department of Indian Affairs.” She begged Jean Chrétien. She said, “if there is anything I can do to help these Indian people...and help“ the helpless children, “I will happily do it.” She continued, it “was not possible to give up basic beliefs about human rights and dignity and still face the children who are forced to live in such a sterile, rigid, unloving atmosphere.” Why do I mention that? Because the children had no voice. They had no one to go to. The Government of Canada was not going to help them. Imagine if the government had. Some of the most brutal crimes and abuses were happening then.
I refer the House to an Ontario Provincial Police document from that time, when the children of St. Anne's approached Bishop Laguerrier at a big event to tell him about the sexual abuse. They had no one else to go to other than him. They sat with him and told him what was happening, and the bishop told them that it was the fatherly way. What we know now of course is that Bishop Jules Laguerrier was one of the most prolific predators.
When the federal government was told to turn over the documents for the IAP for the St. Anne's survivors, the government turned over a person of interest report on Reverend Father Jules Laguerrier that was one page long. It was his biographical information saying when he was at St. Anne's. It was not until the survivors starting demanding answers that it turned out the government was sitting on a person of interest report referring to this bishop, a report 3,191 pages long describing the crimes he committed.
The same happened with the person of interest report for Reverend Father Raymond-Marie Lavoie, which had a two-page report supplied to the independent assessment process. It included brief notes, but it not include the fact that the federal government and the church both had the documents, 2,472 pages long, on Father Lavoie that listed his crimes. Sister Anna Wesley's person of interest report was 6,804 pages long.
The children had no one to go to. They were in the hands of these sadists. That is why we are here to do the right thing, to say that this was a policy and not accidental. The fact is that these people were protected, they got away with it, and they are still getting away with it even beyond the grave. The survivors of St. Anne's Residential School had their cases thrown own because these documents were not supplied. They are asking for closure.
We can talk about the financial indemnifications. All the Christian orders have been involved in the formal apologies. All the Christian orders paid their share. We could use the legal weasel words to say that certain dioceses were not involved. However, the greatest amount of money that came from the Anglican Church came through the diocese of Toronto, which did not have residential schools there. The Anglican people of Toronto knew they had an obligation to do the right thing.
The Catholic Church was ordered to pay its share, and most of it was supposed to be “monies in kind”. Really, after all that. We do not really have any clue of how much of that monies in kind was ever paid. However, we do know that the church was obligated to pay a $25 million payment, but walked away from it on a legal loophole. I am not blaming the Conservative or Liberal government on this. There was a legal loophole and the church walked on it.
We have no legal power over the church in Parliament to tell it to pay, but, my God, it is a moral obligation for the church to pay what it owes, because it got off scot-free for the crimes that were committed, and not just at Ste. Anne's but around the country. It is about doing the right thing.
These documents, these letters, this proof that validates what these survivors went through and survived mean something. It is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on each of the orders in each of the Christian faiths to turn over those documents and photos. Children were taken away and never came home, and there is not even a record of them.
I was in Marten Falls on the 100th anniversary of the signing of Treaty 9. We went up the river. Duncan Campbell Scott came in his canoe to sign it with the people of Ogoki Post. On that 100th anniversary, a man stepped forward and started to speak in Oji-Cree. He apologized that he did not speak English. He said that he had never learned to speak it because they came and took his sister away and never brought her home. Nobody ever told him what happened. The next year when the white man came, his parents hid him in bush. They hid him year after year, every time the white man came to take the children.
I think of that man's family and the faith I grew up with where my aunts were nuns, powerful women of justice. I think of the mercy that was shown to me. I think of the fact that nobody even came to tell him and his family that they took their daughter, that she had died and was in some unmarked grave someplace. Nobody had the decency. Those are the crimes for that have to be atoned for.
Today is a good day. It is a hopeful day. It is a day that we come to terms with what was done through the collusion of the church and the state working hand-in-hand to try to destroy the Indian identity. However, that identity has not been destroyed. That identity is stronger than ever. Those people are watching like a jury over this Parliament, telling us to do the right thing, admit the wrong, and then they can move on.
Meegwetch
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
Lib. (AB)
View Randy Boissonnault Profile
2017-12-13 16:07 [p.16383]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on this particular bill.
Today Canadians who were unjustly convicted because of who they love are one step closer to clearing their names and moving on with their lives. They were victims of past federal policies and practices that under no circumstances would hold up in Canada today. They were systematically discriminated against and demeaned, and they spent much of their lives with all the repercussions of a criminal record, unable, in some cases, to find work, or even travel with their families. They were made to feel as though they had committed a major crime, and they were made to feel as though their sexual orientation could determine whether or not they had a chance in life.
Many tried to fight their convictions and lost. Some waited decades for redress, and others nearly half a century. Tragically, some did not live to see this day.
Today we are sending all of them and their loved ones a clear message when we move this legislation forward: their country is deeply sorry. Their country was wrong. Their country wants to make amends and help their healing process.
I would like to take a moment today to thank all members, on both sides of the House, for their dedication to moving this bill forward. I would also like to thank all the activists and all those who have fought for more than 50 years and put themselves in danger to demand these changes over the past five decades.
We have accounted for these issues by adding the provision that in cases where court or police records are not available, sworn statements may be accepted as evidence.
Second, I would like to speak to some of the questions we have heard concerning bawdy house laws. To be clear, bawdy house laws were intended to capture a broad scope of acts deemed immoral at the time. What this bill would do is deal with charges under gross indecency, buggery, and anal intercourse, which were used under the Criminal Code to victimize LGBTQ2 people systematically. We have enumerated those in the schedule to make sure we are being precise and clear.
Some have raised questions about whether we are simply passing the legislation and then leaving the rest to the LGBTQ2 community. That would be a mischaracterization. Once the bill passes, the government will undertake a proactive outreach process for potential applicants to increase awareness of the initiative as well as the criteria and the application process.
The government will work closely with federal partners and stakeholders from the LGBTQ2 community to inform those applicants. We will not leave members of the LGBTQ2 community in the dark. We have set aside $4 million over two years to implement the process, and I am confident that the process will be sound, efficient, and effective.
The Parole Board, once applications are made, will determine, case by case, successful applications, and successful applicants will have their records of convictions permanently destroyed. The RCMP can then destroy any records of convictions it has in its custody, and it can direct other federal departments or agencies to do the same. The expungement order will then be communicated to other courts and police forces as appropriate.
The bill would also allow the Parole Board of Canada to refuse to issue expungements in certain circumstances. More information on the application process will soon be available to potential applicants. It will not be long after the bill receives royal assent that the Parole Board could begin accepting applications.
The suffering the LGBTQ2 community has endured will not be forgotten. The government will contribute a minimum of $15 million for projects to record and memorialize the tragedy of the past and the hope for the future. That includes a national monument here in Ottawa and an education package concerning discrimination against LGBTQ2 Canadians.
I am proud to stand behind the government's efforts to improve life for our LGBTQ2 community.
I invite my hon. colleagues to help eliminate discrimination and right the wrongs committed against the LGBTQ2 community by joining me in giving their full support to Bill C-66.
Before I end, let me say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the House leader, and all of my colleagues on this side of the House, a very merry Christmas and happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker, and your family, to all parliamentarians and staff for their hard work, to the Clerk and all table officers, to all branches and services of the House administration, to all the families connected to the Houses of Parliament, and to all the loved ones present here today and those we remember because they are now in our prayers and no longer able to be with us. I wish the pages good luck in their exams, and may they have much success in their future endeavours.
Feliz Navidad, merry Christmas, and happy new year.
Merry Christmas to all and to everyone in this place.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, after our committee hearings I am confident that the government has produced a bill that intends to make this process as accessible as possible, and I was reassured by the comments of the Parole Board about the assistance it will offer to members in filing the applications for expungement.
There are a couple more things that have to happen along with this. One of those is that we have to take care of the revision of service records for those in the military who received discharges that were less than fully honourable, or were dishonourable. That is not really covered by the bill, but it is very closely related.
The second part is that while there is agreement in principle in the class action lawsuit, we have to press forward and make sure that the lawsuit is settled to the satisfaction of those plaintiffs.
View Sheri Benson Profile
NDP (SK)
View Sheri Benson Profile
2017-12-08 10:37 [p.16184]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the NDP to support Bill C-66 and its quick passage into law.
For me, as a member of the LGBTQ2 community, the government's apology last week was a long awaited historic moment that paved the way for a more just and more inclusive Canada for everyone. I feel like I am walking on a path walked by so many brave and tireless activists throughout the last 50 years. I also want to acknowledge the important work of former New Democrat MPs such as Svend Robinson, Libby Davies, Bill Siksay, and Craig Scott, who paved the way for gay and lesbian Canadians in this House.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, whose tireless efforts resulted in transgender and gender non-binary Canadians finally receiving the same protections and rights as all other Canadians.
Last week's apology from the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government of Canada was a very emotional day for many Canadians, as well as for me. Even as we celebrated the moment and looked forward to the righting of past injustices, the day also inevitably revived some darker memories of what Canadians have suffered.
In 1965, Everett Klippert, from Saskatchewan, became the last Canadian to be in jail because he was gay. He was declared a dangerous sexual offender and was sentenced to life in prison in 1966. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld his conviction until he was released in 1971, two years after then justice minister Pierre Trudeau's bill legalized consensual homosexual acts. Journalist John Ibbitson, who profiled Klippert, recently said in an interview:
He didn't see himself as a pioneer in the gay rights movement. He was just a guy who loved driving trucks and, as it turned out, loved men as well.
Everett was merely the last Canadian to have been imprisoned for who he loved.
There are countless Canadians whose lives have been shattered and altered immeasurably because they were persecuted for who they are. While the apology is welcomed and the right thing to do, there are many for whom it has come too late. It came too late for Everett Klippert.
Every change, every advancement in law, every protection of basic human rights enshrined in law and policy for members of the LGBTQ2 community has been achieved by dragging governments and public institutions kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. Let us hope that those days are over and that today is the day we commit, as Parliament, to end all state-sanctioned discrimination and to begin the long overdue restoration of justice for its victims. Let us hope that, indeed, as the headline for former NDP MP Svend Robinson's opinion piece in The Globe and Mail states, “For the countless Canadians humiliated by anti-gay policies, healing can finally begin”.
Thanks to activists and allies here in Canada, we have seen a gradual shift away from persecution and unjust punishment and a slow but unstoppable recognition of rights for LGBTQ2 people. I want to share a brief timeline.
In 1969, homosexuality ceased to be a crime in Canada, but it still took two more years before Everett Klippert was released from jail.
In 1975, Doug Wilson, a graduate student in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan, was refused by the dean of the College of Education to supervise practice teachers in the school system, because he was a gay activist. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission dismissed his case of discrimination.
In December 1977, Quebec included sexual orientation in its human rights code, making it the first province in Canada to pass a gay civil rights law. By 2001, all provinces and territories had taken this step forward.
In 1978, Canada's new immigration act removed homosexuals from the list of inadmissible classes.
In 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended in its annual report that sexual orientation be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The following year, MP Pat Carney tabled Bill C-242, which would have prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It did not pass. NDP MP Svend Robinson introduced similar bills in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1989, and 1991.
In 1991, Robinson tried to get the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act to include “or of the same sex”. In 1992, he tried to get the word “opposite sex” definition of spouse removed from Bill C-55, which would have added the definition to survivor benefit provisions in federal pension legislation. All the proposed bills were defeated.
In 1987, Don Cochrane, a professor of education at the University of Saskatchewan, organized the first Breaking the Silence conference to discuss gay and lesbian issues in the education system. The conference celebrated its 30th year this year, but that year, the organizers had to hire security to protect attendees from physical and verbal harassment and abuse from protesters.
In 1988, Svend Robinson became the first member of Parliament to come out. Robinson was first elected to the House of Commons in 1979, and in 2000, the B.C. riding of Burnaby Douglas, as it was called then, elected him for the eighth time.
In 1991, Delwin Vriend, a lab instructor at King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta, was fired from his job because he was gay. The Alberta Human Rights Commission refused to investigate the case, because the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act did not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. Seven years later, after he was fired for being gay, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and finally, on April 2, 1998, the high court unanimously ruled that the exclusion of homosexuals from Alberta's Individual's Rights Protection Act was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Also that year, in my community, Gay & Lesbian Health Services of Saskatoon, now called OUTSaskatoon, opened its doors, thanks to the shear determination and tenacity of Gens Hellquist. GLHS was started to serve the underserved health, social, and emotional needs of gays and lesbians in Saskatchewan.
In August 1992, in Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the failure to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act was discriminatory. Federal justice minister Kim Campbell responded to the decision by announcing that the government would take the necessary steps to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In November 1992, a landmark legal challenge was won by Michelle Douglas, who was fired from the military in 1989 for being a lesbian. The Federal Court finally lifted, in 1992, the country's ban on homosexuals in the military, and that year, for the first time, allowed gays and lesbians to serve with pride in the armed forces.
In May 1995, the Supreme Court ruled on the case involving Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit, two gay men who sued Ottawa for the right to claim the spousal pension under the Old Age Security Act. The court ruled against Egan and Nesbit. However, all nine judges agreed that sexual orientation was a protected ground.
In May 1995, an Ontario judge found that the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario infringed section 15 of the charter by not allowing same sex couples to bring joint application for adoption. Ontario became the first province to make it legal for same sex couples to adopt. British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia followed quickly after.
In 1996, the federal government finally passed Bill C-33 and added sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In May 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that same sex couples should have the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common-law couples and equal access to benefits from social programs to which they contribute.
In June of that year, although many laws would have to be revised to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in May, Parliament voted 216 to 55 in favour of preserving the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
In February 2000, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberals introduced Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, in response to the Supreme Court's main ruling. The act would give same sex couples who lived together for more than a year the same benefits and obligations as all common-law couples. On April 11, 2000, Parliament passed Bill C-23 with a vote of 174 to 72. The legislation gives same sex couples the same social and tax benefits as all couples.
In total, the bill affected over 68 federal statutes related to a wide range of issues: pension benefits, old age security, income tax deductions, bankruptcy protection, and the Criminal Code. Despite this, the definitions of marriage and spouse were left untouched.
On December 10, 2000, Reverend Brent Hawkes, of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, read the first bans, an old Christian tradition of publishing or giving public notice of people's intent to marry, for two same-sex couples. Hawkes said that if the bans were read on three Sundays before the wedding, he could legally marry the couples. The two same-sex couples were married on January 14, 2001. The following day, the Ontario government reiterated the government's position, saying that the marriages would not be legally recognized.
The year 2000 was also the year that a Saskatoon Mount Royal high school teacher, Patti Rowley, attended a session at a school board convention by gay and lesbian health services. A year later, she started a gay-straight alliance in a high school in Saskatoon, at Mount Royal Collegiate. She has been facilitating a weekly meeting for students and teachers ever since, 22 years later.
In May 2002, then Ontario Supreme Court Justice Robert MacKinnon ruled that a gay student had the right to take his boyfriend to the prom. In July 2002, for the very first time, a Canadian court ruled in favour of recognizing same-sex marriages under the law. The Ontario superior court ruled that prohibiting gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In February 2003, MP Svend Robinson unveiled a private member's bill that would allow same-sex marriages. The federal government had already changed several laws to give same-sex couples the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual common-law couples. In June of that year, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling to legally allow same-sex marriages. The judgment said “the existing common law definition of marriage violates the Couples' equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation..”.
In June 2003, the Ontario government announced that the province would finally obey the law and register same-sex marriages. Nearly two dozen couples applied for marriage licences in Ontario on the following day.
In August 2003, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien vowed not to let religious objections alter his stand on same-sex marriage. He said that members of Parliament would be allowed to vote freely on the bill when it was introduced into the House of Commons, after his retirement in 2004.
In December 2003, the Ontario court ruled that Ottawa had discriminated against same-sex couples by denying benefits to their partners who had died before 1998. The court ruled that benefits would be retroactive to April 17, 1985, when equality rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.
In December 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government could change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In February 2005, the federal government finally introduced the same-sex marriage bill in the House of Commons. The bill would give married same-sex partners the same legal protection as other married couples. In May of that year, a Canadian Forces sergeant and a warrant officer were married in the chapel at CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia, in the military's very first gay wedding.
In June 2005, the controversial bill, Bill C-38, titled “Civil Marriage Act”, passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through with a vote of 158 to 133. On July 20, 2005, the bill became law, and Canada became the fourth country in the world, after the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain, to finally and officially recognize same-sex marriage.
We can see that the road to the apology has been strewn with obstacles, and the struggle and resistance have been real and unrelenting. Each battle has been fought multiple times in multiple jurisdictions.
While governments, parliaments, police services, and other institutions, which were created to protect people, continued to persecute and prosecute LGBTQ Canadians, brave and courageous souls made change, positive change, despite governments. They did that one person, one family, one community at a time, and they saved people's lives. While the apology sadly came too late for some of these brave people, it does represent a much brighter future for those who remain. The apology is the proper first step, and we applaud the government for taking it.
New Democrats have been unwavering in calling for a just apology, and we are pleased that the government has announced that it is including redress measures in the bill. An apology without any redress measures would have been just an apology, not a just apology. There are thousands of people with unjust historic convictions for consensual same-sex sexual activity still on the records, and these convictions continue to be a barrier for people when it comes to travel, volunteering, even to getting a job.
New Democrats have fought to make sure that expungement legislation was tabled at the same time as the apology, and we are committed to working together with all parliamentarians and government to get this legislation passed as soon as possible. By expunging the convictions for historic consensual same-sex activity, the government is ensuring that no unfairly applied discriminatory label or judgment can continue to have negative impacts on people's daily lives.
While Bill C-66 is not perfect, we believe that all of the issues in question are fixable without amending the bill and therefore should not cause delay in the passage of the bill. New Democrats would like to see the immediate implementation of a process for the expungement of criminal records for consensual same-sex sexual activity. Speedy follow-through on a redress measure is necessary to complete and validate the government apology.
Now that Bill C-66 is tabled, we want to also make sure that the government continues to make sure that Canadian Forces service records are revised, that it quickly moves on the tabled legislation to repeal section 159 of the Criminal Code, and, of course, that it finally ends the blood ban for men who have sex with men.
I would like to thank those who went before us, as well as everyone who continues to work toward a more inclusive and equal Canada. There remains, unfortunately, a lot still to do.
I chose to run to be a member of Parliament for Saskatoon West. My goal was to end homelessness. As we heard the parliamentary secretary mention, LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in homelessness in this country. It is estimated that between 25% and 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ2. These young people are more vulnerable or at a higher risk of homelessness because of homophobia and transphobia. LGBTQ youth leave home most often because of violence and abuse. Their home is not safe for them. They often choose to live, literally on the street because they face homophobia and transphobia in our shelter systems and in support services. Despite human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and legalizing same-sex marriage, homophobia and transphobia are still very much a part of daily life in Canada, in our language, in our behaviour, and in the policies and practices of many of our helping institutions.
In the timeline I shared today, I highlighted important Canadian firsts that took place in my home province of Saskatchewan. These are important milestones that have improved the lives of LGBTQ2 Canadians. I would like to end my remarks with one final first.
This fall, the first long-term LGBTQ2 youth home in Canada, Pride Home, was opened in my riding. The youth home is operated by the amazing organization OUTSaskatoon. In 2016, a survey by OUTSaskatoon found that 40% of the local LGBTQ2 youth had dealt with homelessness at some point in their short lives.
We all hope for the day that all LGBTQ2 youth, all youth, have a warm and supportive loving home, but, until then, thank goodness for organizations like OUTSaskatoon.
View Larry Miller Profile
CPC (ON)
View Larry Miller Profile
2017-09-22 12:12 [p.13407]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present e-petition 1073, which calls on the government not to sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and to halt the passage of Bill C-47.
The more than 4,500 signatories from my riding and across the country express their concerns regarding the impact that Bill C-47 and Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty would have on lawful civilian ownership of firearms in Canada. This petition has signatories from every province and territory expressing their concerns about Bill C-47.
View Navdeep Bains Profile
Lib. (ON)
moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-25. This government is making innovation a priority. That means helping Canadian companies drive growth and create jobs that strengthen the middle class. It also means growing companies that can compete in the global marketplace.
The government's inclusive innovation agenda is a plan to drive economic growth through innovation. As legislators, we have a responsibility to set the ground rules for doing business, and we have the means to create the winning conditions for people and companies to innovate and thrive.
It is no accident that our innovation agenda has the word “inclusive” attached to it.
This government recognizes that our country is at its most prosperous when everyone has a fair chance to succeed.
Bill C-25, which I present to the House today, makes important adjustments to the framework laws that govern the Canadian marketplace. These laws set out how corporations are organized.
They also promote investor confidence and a competitive marketplace. These conditions support long-term investment and economic growth, and this bill would make it easier for Canadian companies to harness their innovation to succeed. It would also position businesses to operate in the global and digital marketplace.
Before describing these changes in more detail, I will speak to the global context in which these framework laws operate.
Today's marketplace is complex and changing rapidly. Global companies are becoming local companies and competitors, and new technologies are providing companies with vast amounts of information to make decisions.
Technology also allows transactions to happen quickly across the global, and the global marketplace is more interconnected than ever before. A disruption or discovery in one part of the world can have profound consequences in another.
To remain competitive, companies must understand how their partners, suppliers, competitors, and customers do business. Our government is committed to making Canada a global innovation leader.
This means enabling businesses to grow, increasing our country's productivity, and creating well-paying jobs for the middle class. It also means Canada's marketplace framework laws must be updated to reflect a global and digital economy.
These laws must be updated to enhance investor confidence, foster competition, and contribute to an inclusive economic growth agenda. These laws should also support investment and innovation without unduly burdening businesses.
The amendments I have tabled today would provide the foundation for a 21st century marketplace.
They will align Canada’s framework laws with best practices in jurisdictions around the world.
The bill sets out measures to modify the way corporate directors are elected. The bill also contains measures to improve diversity on corporate boards and in senior management level positions.
The goal is to attract the best and brightest from as wide a talent pool as possible. This is how Canada can make full use of the competitive advantage granted to us by this extraordinary diversity of our population.
Additionally, Bill C-25 would improve corporate transparency.
It will eliminate outdated instruments of commerce and modernize shareholder communications. These changes will reflect the new norms and practices of a digital economy.
The bill would increase business certainty and flexibility as well. It would allow Canadian businesses to focus on what makes them most productive, efficient, and innovative. The laws being amended in this bill include the Canada Business Corporations Act, or CBCA.
This statute sets out the rules that facilitate the interaction among shareholders, directors, management, and other interested parties involved in corporate decision-making. In 2015, there were approximately 270,000 companies incorporated under the act. The CBCA serves as a model for other governance laws.
The Canada Cooperatives Act is the framework legislation for federally incorporated non-financial co-operatives. The Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act is the framework law for non-share capital corporations. In 2015, there were more than 19,000 federally incorporated not-for-profit corporations under the act.
The Competition Act is a law of general application that addresses anti-competitive business conduct. It examines and seeks to address the activities of firms that may be harming competition in the marketplace. By improving and clarifying the rules under which our firms operate, we are positioning them for long-term growth.
We are also aligning Canada’s practices with international best practices in corporate governance.
October is Women's History Month. This is a time when we celebrate the women who have shaped Canada's history as leaders, entrepreneurs, scholars, artists, and trailblazers in all spheres of life. Let me address what the bill does for diversity.
As I have said before, I firmly believe it is our moral duty to promote diversity and inclusion.
Under-representation of different segments of our population is not only a question of fairness, it affects the bottom line. In the boardroom, as in life, taking into consideration viewpoints from a variety of perspectives can lead to innovative thinking and better performance. Innovation requires fresh ideas, new ideas, and the best ideas can come from anyone, anywhere.
We live in an age when anyone with a smartphone can connect, create, collaborate, trade, and sell, regardless of distance. Because the tools to create knowledge and value are now available to everyone, a teenager can start her own technology company.
A university student can launch a social-media platform that becomes a global sensation overnight.
The broader the talent pool, the greater the potential for the next great app to emerge.
Our government is committed to doing all we can to unlock the full potential of Canadians, especially those who are under-represented in certain sectors of today's economy. I know that all parliamentarians support this goal as well.
Earlier this year, this Parliament unanimously passed, and this was a point of pride, Bill C-11, which allowed Canada to become the first G7 country to adopt the Marrakesh Treaty. I was proud to announce this piece of legislation in the House and see it receive the support of all parliamentarians.
The Marrakesh Treaty benefits three million Canadians who are visually impaired or print disabled. As a result of the treaty, they will have better access to books and other copyrighted materials. As a result of better access to knowledge, these Canadians will be able to fully participate in the economy. That is how our government's commitment to diversity allows Canadians from all walks of life to become productive members of society.
Bill C-25 builds on that commitment to innovation and prosperity through diversity.
As part of the reforms to the CBCA, corporations would be required to disclose to shareholders the composition of their boards and senior management. They would also be required to make public their diversity policies. Those corporations without a diversity policy would have to explain why they do not have one.
This amendment will complement existing measures already adopted by most provincial securities regulators.
It would apply to all publicly traded CBCA corporations, regardless of which securities regulator they reported to.
By taking into account the composition of boards, investors could make informed choices when they exercised their voting rights.
These reforms are designed to facilitate a conversation between shareholders and corporations on how they are promoting diversity.
The goal is to encourage corporations to consider a broader range of candidates and skill sets among their senior leaders.
The second set of amendments contained in Bill C-25 aims to promote greater shareholder democracy. The goal is to ensure that the voting process allows shareholders to have their voices heard in a meaningful way.
The bill would make three key reforms to the process of electing corporate directors. These reforms would affect publicly traded CBCA corporations and publicly traded co-operatives incorporated under the Canada Cooperatives Act.
First, the bill would require the prescribed corporations and co-operatives to hold annual votes for the election of corporate directors. Currently the law permits directors to hold office for up to three years before a vote is required. The entrenchment of company boards can hamper innovative thinking.
Ensuring that shareholders can make changes more often is a step in the right direction.
Second, directors under the CBCA would be elected individually, not as a slate or a group of candidates. An all-or-nothing approach prevents voters from meaningfully exercising their democratic rights and bringing in the board they want.
Third, the bill would permit shareholders to vote explicitly against a candidate in an uncontested election, that is, when the number of candidates was the same as the number of board positions to be filled. Even when there was no competing candidate, a prospective director would still need enough votes in support of her candidacy to make up a majority of the votes cast to be elected.
Of course, there is more to shareholder participation than simply voting. Transparency and clarity are important to shareholders as well.
The bill would modernize shareholder communications to align practices with how businesses are conducted today. The bill would permit CBCA corporations and co-operatives incorporated under the Canada Cooperatives Act to provide their shareholders or members with online access to relevant documents related to an annual meeting. This notice and access system would reduce costs, conserve resources, and increase business efficiency.
In addition, the bill would simplify the deadline for shareholders to submit proposals to directors so that they could participate in meetings more often and effectively.
The fourth amendment would make it clear that CBCA corporations and federal non-financial co-operatives would be prohibited from issuing share certificates and share warrants in bearer form. Much like cash, a bearer share is owned by whoever holds the physical stock certificate. The issuing firm neither registers the owner nor tracks any transfers of ownership, and when these instruments are issued in blank form, they can be used as a vehicle for money laundering or terrorist financing. That is because they are easily transferrable and untraceable.
This amendment would require all shares to be registered. It is a preventive measure that would be particularly relevant to law enforcement.
It will ensure that Canada aligns its rules with the recommendations of the international Financial Action Task Force.
The bill would also amend the Competition Act to broaden the understanding of what makes one business entity affiliated with another. Currently, because of its outdated definition, there is a risk that business between affiliates could be viewed under the law as a joint action with competitors.
The existing law does not fully account for non-corporate structures, such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or trusts. This uncertainty could lead to companies being needlessly exposed to sanctions under the act, and reorganization among affiliated companies could be interpreted as a merger of competing firms.
That process could require notifying the Commissioner of Competition. It could also incur a fee and a significant amount of paperwork. There is also the risk that a collaborative project between two affiliated companies could be treated as an arrangement between competing firms. It could be misrepresented or misinterpreted as harmful competition or outright collusion.
To address this legislative gap, the bill would update the Competition Act's rules on affiliation and would make the rules business structure-neutral. This update would ensure, clearly and explicitly, that businesses that are engaged in joint ventures with their affiliates are not subjected unwittingly to the act's enforcement provisions.
This amendment will create certainty and replace an outdated framework that can cost businesses unnecessary time and resources.
One of the key features of this bill is that it positions Canada among world leaders in corporate governance. For example, most member states of the European Union have implemented gender diversity legislation. Both the United Kingdom and Australia have required disclosure, including a comply or explain model in the latter case, which saw significant improvements in terms of board representation.
In the United States, publicly listed companies have adopted policies on majority voting for corporate directors. Even in Canada we have seen provincial securities regulators adopt similar rules that promote greater shareholder participation and corporate diversity.
These amendments are an important step forward.
They would modernize corporate governance laws to align with today's technological realities and support business efficiency. They would promote greater transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the marketplace and give investors the information they need to make informed decisions about their investments.
Above all, these amendments recognize the great asset that is our country's diversity. Canada's business community would have a crucial role in promoting diversity. Some have already done so, and I know that others will step up to show that they are committed to growing our economy by tapping Canada's full potential. By modernizing our ground rules and aligning with international standards, Canada can position itself for the inclusive innovation and growth that would propel this country going forward.
I am proud to be launching this important initiative today on behalf of the Government of Canada.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2016-10-26 16:46 [p.6160]
Madam Speaker, my mistake. Thank you for the clarification.
Bill C-25 ensures that we create the right conditions to keep Canada at the forefront of a global economy. It will provide a transparent and predictable business environment for firms to innovate and grow.
Bill C-25 makes a number of modernizing adjustments. First, it will require publicly traded corporations to disclose to their shareholders the composition of their boards and senior-management ranks.
The measures in Bill C-25 call on corporations to tell their shareholders how they are promoting diversity at the senior-leadership level. Under representation of certain groups in society is not only a question of fairness. It can also affect the bottom line. This disclosure facilitates a frank conversation between corporations and their shareholders.
I am particularly proud to be speaking about this bill during Women’s History Month. It is a time when we celebrate the women who have shaped Canada’s history. We honour their courage, sacrifice and leadership in all spheres of life.
With this bill, our government is committed to addressing the under-representation of women and other groups in the highest levels of corporate leadership. This bill encourages corporations to reflect on whether they are drawing from the largest talent pool available to improve their performance.
This government is committed to inclusive growth. We have made our views on diversity very clear. We have already achieved gender parity in cabinet.
We also announced changes to the process for Governor in Council appointments. These changes ensure that diversity is a critical factor in selecting those who lead our public sector corporations and boards.
Bill C-25 builds on those initiatives. The bill recognizes that embracing diversity should be adopted as a good practice in corporate governance. We are not alone. We have already seen a similar commitment by other governments. Securities regulators and the private sector have also worked to increase diversity on corporate boards and within executive ranks.
Most securities regulators have adopted “comply or explain” rules that require publicly traded corporations to disclose gender composition and diversity policies for their executive ranks. Some private sector and non-profit organizations have adopted diversity policies or voluntary targets to increase women’s participation on corporate boards. We commend their efforts.
To improve shareholder democracy, Bill C-25 will also reform the process of electing corporate directors. It will introduce a majority-voting model when elections are uncontested. In our current system, a candidate can be elected even when there is only a single vote in favour, and all others were withheld.
If the proposed amendments are passed by the House, in an uncontested election, a candidate can only be elected if they have the majority of votes cast in their favour. This practice gives shareholders the right to vote against a candidate instead of simply withholding their vote.
Bill C-25 will also require publicly traded corporations to hold annual elections for corporate directors. It will also ensure that shareholders can vote for individual candidates rather than a group of candidates.
These reforms support diversity, shareholder democracy, and corporate performance. They allow shareholders to consider individual candidates on a more frequent basis. As a result, there are opportunities for deeper reflection on what diverse skill sets and experiences are best suited to govern a corporation.
Bill C-25 will also permit shareholders to access corporate materials online. This amendment will bring market framework laws into the digital age. It will increase business efficiency and reduce operational costs, while aligning with provincial securities rules. This amendment will also increase transparency and shareholder democracy.
Another amendment contained in the bill is an update to the Competition Act. This amendment ensures that our laws keep pace with contemporary ways that corporations structure themselves. Specifically, the bill takes into account how corporate affiliates are recognized under the act. The amendments do away with the risk that affiliates would be mistaken as competitors in the eyes of the law.
Making the law clear and neutral on this point eliminates business uncertainty. It also avoids the unnecessary time and resources that are currently spent on ensuring that companies comply with the law.
Madam Speaker, I would just like to clarify something. May I speak longer than my 10 minutes when I am sharing my time?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2016-09-30 11:51 [p.5337]
Madam Speaker, this week is Right to Know Week, but every day that goes by without a duty to document the discussions and decisions in ministers' offices is an affront to Canadians' right to know.
The Liberal government has so far not dealt with the issue of ministerial emails being deleted. The Information Commissioner has recently called for the Auditor General to look into the practice.
When is the Liberal government going to make it clear to Canadians what it is deciding to keep and what it is deciding to delete, and when is it going to bring in rules to require proper documentation?
After all, Canadians have a right to know.
View Bardish Chagger Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bardish Chagger Profile
2016-09-30 11:51 [p.5337]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to rise in the House to remind all members and Canadians that we campaigned on a commitment to have a more open, more transparent, more relevant government for Canadians. We will continue to do the good work that we are doing.
I look forward to working with the member opposite with any feedback that he has.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 18--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Operation PROVISION and the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support to the government's initiative to resettle 25 000 Syrian Refugees in Canada by the end of February 2016, including the use of CAF bases to do so: (a) which bases will be used; (b) what is the expected number of refugees that will utilize each base for lodging; (c) how many CAF and Department of National Defence personnel had to leave their living quarters from each base to accommodate the incoming refugees; (d) at each base, what type of construction, renovation, or winterization projects had to be completed in order to accommodate the incoming refugees; (e) what are the individual costs of the projects identified in (b); (f) were all Treasury Board guidelines followed for the tendering and awarding of these contracts; (g) from where are the funds necessary to accommodate refugees on CAF bases being allocated; (h) how many troops and personnel will be deployed as a part of Operation PROVISION and to where will they be deployed; (i) in what type of work will they be engaged while overseas; (j) will they be deployed as civilian or military personnel; (k) will the CAF be providing force protection for the troops deployed as a part Operation PROVISION; (l) if the answer to (k) is negative, who will be providing the force protection and what price; (m) will the government table a copy in the House of any force protection contracts that it has signed as part of Operation PROVISION?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 19--
Hon. Michelle Rempel:
With regard to the government’s Syrian refugee resettlement initiative, including, but not limited to the measures announced by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship on November 24, 2015: (a) what is the total number of existing CIC visa officers and other CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), who have been re-assigned since November 4, 2015, from processing applications under other streams or “lines of business” to enhance the processing capacity of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by employees re-assigned from processing (i) spousal sponsorship applications, (ii) economic immigration permanent resident visas, (iii) work permit applications, (iv) student visa applications, (v) all other streams, identifying the stream in question; (b) what was the total number of CIC employees, in whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on November 4, 2015; (c) what is the total number of CIC employees, whole or in part (i.e. FTEs), including visa officers, who were responsible for processing Syrian refugee applications on December 10, 2015; (d) what is the anticipated operational impact, expressed in additional application processing time, for each CIC “line of business,” caused by the re-allocation of CIC employee resources to enhance the processing of Syrian refugee applications; (e) what is the total number of cases that were finalized for each week in the 2015 calendar year, up to and including December 10, 2015, for each permanent and temporary resident visa category, broken down by (i) outcome (i.e. “approved,” “refused,” or “withdrawn”), (ii) CIC Visa Office or CIC Processing Office; (f) what is the total number of Syrian refugee applications, broken down by sponsorship category (e.g. Government Sponsored Refugees, Privately Sponsored Refugees, Group of Five, etc.), finalized on or after November 5, 2015; (g) of the total number Syrian refugee applications that were finalized on or after November 5, 2015, how many applications were referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or the Canada Border Services Agency, prior to the visa officer’s decision to either grant or refuse a permanent resident visa, for a (i) record check, (ii) comprehensive security vetting?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 20--
Mr. Mark Strahl:
With regards to the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to “Act on recommendations of the Cohen Commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River”: (a) what scientific analyses were completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on each of the 75 recommendations contained in the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River; (b) what recommendations identified in (a) have been implemented in whole or in part; (c) of the recommendations identified in (b) what was the cost of implementation, both on a one-time and ongoing basis; and (d) when will the remaining recommendations of the Cohen Commission, in whole or in part, be implemented?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 21--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to the province of Saskatchewan, since November 4, 2015: what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) recipient, (ii) constituency, (iii) amount?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 22--
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson:
With regard to funding for women’s shelters for the fiscal years from 2010 to 2015: (a) how much funding has the government spent on construction of new women’s shelters and new spaces in women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (b) how much money has the government spent on funding for renovation of existing women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (c) how much money has the government spent on non-capital supports for women’s shelters annually, in total, and broken down by (i) program, (ii) province; (d) when did the government stop accepting applications for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program; and (e) when did the government cancel funding for the off-reserve portion of the Shelter Enhancement Program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 23--
Mr. Romeo Saganash:
With regard to the total expenditures of the government incurred by all departments defending against Aboriginal-rights claims made against the government and appealing against case decisions upholding Aboriginal rights in court: (a) what was the amount spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; (b) what was the amount spent on these activities to date in the current fiscal year; (c) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities, broken down by fiscal year from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015; and (d) what was the actual amount budgeted to be spent on these activities for the current fiscal year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 24--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to changes to the machinery of government made on November 4, 2015: (a) for each department that was changed, what is the cost of making those changes (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category of expense; and (b) for each agency, Crown corporation, board, commission, or foundation that has been placed under the authority of a different ministry than was the case in the previous administration, what is the cost of making that change (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 25--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI) for 2015: (a) what was the volume of EI applications in total and broken down by (i) region and province where the claim originated, (ii) the number of claims accepted and the number of claims rejected, (iii) month; (b) what was the average EI application processing time in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (c) how many applications waited more than 28 days for a decision and, for these applications, what was the average wait time for a decision, in total and broken down by (i) region and province where claim originated, (ii) month; (d) what was the volume of calls to EI call centres in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (e) what was the number of calls to EI call centres that received a high volume message in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (f) what were the national service level standards for calls answered by an agent at EI call centres, broken down by month; (g) what were the actual service level standards achieved by EI call centres for calls answered by an agent, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (h) what were the service standards for call-backs from EI processing staff, broken down by month; (i) what were the service standards achieved by EI processing staff for call-backs, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (j) what was the average number of days for a call-back by EI processing staff, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province; (k) what was the number and percentage of term employees and the number and percentage of indeterminate employees, working at EI call centres and processing centres; (l) what was the rate of sick-leave use among EI call centre and processing centre employees; (m) what was the number of EI call centre and processing centre employees on long-term disability; (n) what was the number of overtime hours worked by call centre employees; (o) who authored the report on EI processing for which the former parliamentary secretary for Employment and Social Development was credited; (p) what is the table of contents for the report; (q) will the government make the report public; (r) how many complaints did the Office of Client Satisfaction receive, broken down by (i) month, (ii) region and province where the complaint originated; (s) how long on average did a complaint take to be investigated and resolved, broken down by month; and (t) what were the major themes of the complaints received?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 26--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to Employment Insurance (EI): (a) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Commission in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013, (v) 2014; (b) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the EI Boards of Referees in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (c) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by EI Umpires in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012, (iv) 2013; (d) how many applications for sickness benefits made while the applicant was on parental leave were granted by the Social Security Tribunal in (i) 2013, (ii) 2014; (e) how much money has the government spent on the class-action court case regarding women who were denied sickness benefits while on parental leave; (f) how many Justice Department lawyers have been working on the class-action court case; and (g) what was the average cost for an appeal to be considered by the EI Commission, a Board of Referees, and an EI Umpire?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 27--
Ms. Niki Ashton:
With regard to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program: (a) how many applications were received for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (b) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (c) what was the average processing time for Labour Market Impact Assessments in 2015, in total and broken down by (i) month, (ii) province, (iii) National Occupational Classification (NOC) code; (d) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (e) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were received for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (f) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for high-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (g) how many applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments were approved for low-wage temporary foreign workers in 2015; (h) since June 2014, how many employers with fewer than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (i) since June 2014, how many employers with more than ten employees have been granted positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, broken down by year; (j) how many work permits have been issued in 2015, in total and broken down by month; (k) how many tips have been received on the confidential tip phone line since its creation, broken down by month; (l) how many tips have been received through the online tip portal since its creation, broken down by month; (m) how many investigations have been conducted as a result of tips received; (n) how many investigations have been the result of multiple tips; (o) how many investigations have resulted in employers being found non-compliant; (p) how many investigations have resulted in penalties being imposed on the employer; (q) how many employers have been required to take corrective action in order to be found compliant as a result of an investigation; (r) how many employers using the Temporary Foreign Worker Program have been subject to an inspection from 2013 to 2015 inclusively, broken down by (i) month, (ii) province; (s) how many inspections were conducted because an employer requested a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (t) how many inspections occurred at a time when the employer was not requesting a new Labour Market Opinion or Labour Market Impact Assessment between 2013 and 2015, broken down by month; (u) how many inspections have revealed non-compliance by employers between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) issues identified, (iii) industry of the employer; (v) how many employers have had to take steps to be considered compliant between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of actions required, (iii) industry of the employer; (w) how many employers have received penalties for non-compliance as a result of an inspection between 2013 and 2015, broken down by (i) month, (ii) type of penalty, (iii) industry of the employer; (x) how many inspections conducted between 2013 and 2015 have involved an on-site visit, broken down by month; (y) how many foreign nationals have been removed from Canada because their four-year period of eligibility had expired; and (z) when will Employment and Social Development Canada begin publicly reporting data on the number of temporary foreign workers approved and the names of employers receiving positive Labour Market Impact Assessments?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 28--
Hon. Ed Fast:
With regard to Canada's delegation at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21): (a) what is the total cost incurred by the government for this delegation; (b) what are the details of the expenses incurred by each delegate; and (c) what are the costs of the delegation broken down by (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, (iii) meals and incidentals, (iv) lodging, (v) salaries, (vi) per diems, (vii) operations?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 31--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to the military equipment currently owned by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) which items have been identified as surplus; (b) how many of each surplus item are in the CAF’s stock; (c) what is the value of each item deemed to be surplus; (d) where is the current surplus equipment being stored, (e) what is the process for liquidating surplus items in the case of (i) DND, (ii) CAF; (f) what regulations are in place that prevent or restrict DND and CAF’s ability to liquidate surplus military equipment; and (g) what is the government’s policy as to the manner in which the revenue generated from the liquidation of surplus assets will be redistributed by the government?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 34--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889: (a) does the middle of the main channel of the Ottawa River, from the head of Lake Temiscamingue to the intersection by the prolongation of the western limits of the Seigneurie of Rigaud, such mid-channel being as indicated on a map of the Ottawa Ship Canal Survey by Walter Shanly, C.E., still delineate the boundary between Ontario and Quebec; (b) are copies of the Order of the Governor-General in Council, dated July 21, 1886, that approved the mid-channel boundary described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; (c) are certified copies of the map referred to in the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, showing the mid-channel described in (a), available to members of the public, and if not, why not; and (d) has either the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario challenged the location of the boundary since the Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, received Royal Assent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 35--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With respect to the September 2015 announcement of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that it would effectuate a transfer of information to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS): (a) how many records has the CRA transferred to the IRS to date; (b) on what dates did information transfer occur and how many records were transferred on each date; (c) how many records of individuals have been transferred in total; (d) by what means were the records transferred; (e) how much did it cost the CRA to compile the records for transfer; (f) how much did it cost the CRA to complete the transfer; (g) how were the costs in (e) and (f) calculated and what is the breakdown of those costs; (h) who made the decision to transfer the records; (i) when was the decision made to transfer records; (j) when did the CRA become aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline for such transfer; (k) how was the CRA made aware that the U.S. Treasury had extended the deadline; (l) what steps were taken to assess and respond to the notice of deadline extension in (j); (m) what was the policy reason for transferring records despite the deadline extension; (n) when is the next transfer of records scheduled to take place; (o) what analysis was conducted to assess whether the transfer of records during the writ period for the 42nd General Election complied with the "Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Ministers of State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants During an Election"; (p) what records exist with respect to any analysis conducted in relation to (o); (q) was information concerning the transfer of records from the CRA to the IRS included in any transition materials prepared for a potential change in government or the Ministers responsible for CRA and Foreign Affairs; (r) what documents exist in relation to (q) and what are their file numbers; (s) has the new Minister responsible for CRA been informed of information transfers to the IRS and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (t) has the new Minister of Justice been informed of the information transfer and been provided with any analysis of its legal implications and, if so, (i) when, (ii) how, (iii) by whom, (iv) with what documents produced or prepared for this purpose; (u) have Canadians who will be affected by the transfer been informed of the transfer of their records; (v) what plans exist with regard to informing Canadians about the transfer of their records; (w) has any proposal to inform Canadians of the transfer of their information to the IRS been evaluated by the government and, if so, with what conclusions; (x) what documents exist in relation to (w) and what are their file numbers; (y) what legal challenges does the government anticipate with respect to information transfer, and how is it preparing to respond; (z) what measures are in place to ensure the security of record transfers to the IRS; and (aa) has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted or involved in any way in the preparation or planning of record transfer to ensure conformity with applicable laws regarding the exchange of Canadians' personal information and, if so, to what extent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 36--
Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault:
With regard to the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) administered by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2015: (a) what amounts were awarded in the form of contributions to firms and contributions to organizations, broken down by year and by the following regional offices: (i) NRC-IRAP Sherbrooke, (ii) NRC-IRAP Granby, (iii) NRC-IRAP Victoriaville, (iv) NRC-IRAP Longueuil, (v) NRC-IRAP Gatineau, (vi) NRC-IRAP Sept-Îles, (vii) NRC-IRAP Trois-Rivières, (viii) NRC-IRAP Drummondville, (ix) NRC-IRAP Lévis, (x) NRC-IRAP Québec City; (b) how many interactive visits were requested and approved, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (c) how many projects were submitted and approved broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); (d) how many projects were submitted and approved under the Business Innovation Access Program (BIAP) administered by IRAP, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a); and (e) in what other activities did NRC-IRAP participate, broken down by year and by regional office provided in (a)?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-421-18 Operation PROVISION8555-421-19 Syrian refugee resettlement ...8555-421-20 Recommendations of the Cohen ...8555-421-21 Province of Saskatchewan8555-421-22 Funding for Women's Shelters8555-421-23 Expenditures related to Abor ...8555-421-24 Changes to machinery of gove ...8555-421-25 Employment Insurance applications8555-421-26 Employment Insurance sicknes ...8555-421-27 Temporary Foreign Worker Program8555-421-28 Delegation at the United Nat ... ...Show all topics
Results: 1 - 10 of 10

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data